I discussed some of this in a couple of posts months ago (“Impact of technology on kids’ thinking abilities” and “The Virtual Frontier”). But being more conscious of the effects of the Web (and not just the Web, but TV as well), viewing my experience with kids in the time since then, along with some other reading, has led me to believe that Carr is right.

I recently finished reading Rafe Esquith’s Lighting Their Fires: Raising Extraordinary Children in a Mixed-Up, Muddled-Up, Shook-Up World. Esquith, who teaches in a public elementary school in Los Angeles, describes the differences between kids who watch a lot of TV and those who don’t. Anecdotal? Yes, but highly persuasive. And I think a lot of studies bear out his observations.

I believe it’s in the article above that someone says that the Web is really no different than TV — and TV hasn’t messed us up. I would argue that the latter is disputable. There’s a lot of garbage on TV.

And TV, by including the visual element, naturally draws our attention even more than radio. And to a kid it can be hypnotic. The Web requires even more attention. That makes it even more addictive in a way, but that’s also an improvement of sorts over TV. TV was a passive medium. The Web requires you to at least get involved. But kids’ brains are still developing. Do most kids have the self-discipline to know when to stop? Even if they do, can they? Some studies show that Web use triggers the release of dopamine.

We need to teach kids how to make good decisions

Does this mean we should shut down the Web? Or prohibit kids from using it? The answer is obviously no. The Web is a great tool. But it can also be a great time-waster. And too much exposure is not good for kids. And another reason to be cautious is that marketing has become the predominant driver of the Web. (See the Wall Street Journal series about Internet privacy for more info on how much information about you companies are tracking so they can target purchasing choices for you.) Our economy thrives on people who don’t want to delay gratification. And I think short attention spans make it more difficult to resist buying. (This would be more coherent, but I’ve spent too much time on the Web.)

I also have to say that I do disagree with some of the comments in the articles about the distraction of hypertext links. When I was a kid I would often thumb back and forth between pages in encyclopedias and other books, hopping from one reference to another (or even pulling different books off the shelf). Hyperlinks make it so much easier to check references. Well, that’s a good example of how people differ. I find that incredibly useful and I can ignore ones that I’m not interested in. (Though I have on occasion been known to wander far afield from where I started.)

I’ve also started reading Raising Self-Reliant Children in a Self-Indulgent World by H. Stephen Glenn and Jane Nelsen. That was written twenty years earlier than Esquith’s book, but also discusses the problems caused by too much exposure to TV, the inability to delay gratification, etc. It also discusses how the breakdown of family structures after the Second World War and increasing urbanization also have contributed to problems for kids in many ways. (I’m behind on summarizing books, so I won’t get into the details.) I do want to say that the book is focused on building up kids and not tearing them down. It’s based on what the authors call “perceptual psychology.”

“What can science tell us about the actual effects that Internet use is having on the way our minds work?” [Carr] asks. His answer, iterated throughout this often repetitive but otherwise excellent book: “The news is even more disturbing than I had suspected. Dozens of studies by psychologists, neurobiologists, educators and Web designers point to the same conclusion: When we go online, we enter an environment that promotes cursory reading, hurried and distracted thinking and superficial learning. It’s possible to think deeply while surfing the Net, just like it’s possible to think shallowly while reading a book, but that’s not the type of thinking the technology encourages and rewards.”

Carr cites numerous studies to delineate not only the impact on the brain, but also the alterations in brain biology that lead to the impact. It turns out the human brain is a shape shifter, the technical term being “neuroplasticity.” The phenomenon is not easy to explain, but Carr is adept at explaining with as little jargon as possible. “As particular circuits in our brain strengthen through the repetition of a physical or mental activity, they begin to transform that activity into a habit.”

A second USA Today story, this one about college students and information technology, contains mention of a study that I thought worth pointing out.

Some of the newer devices try to mimic traditional study behavior with features such as the ability to highlight text and take notes in the margins. Still, the gee-whiz technology doesn’t necessarily help students study better, suggests a study published this month in Journal of Educational Psychology. Students often highlight too much material, so building a highlighting function into the technology may simply enable students to continue an ineffective habit, the study found. “Worse, they may not even process or understand what they select,” says study author Ken Kiewra, a professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

This week is National Environmental Education Week. By teaching our kids more about the environment we will hopefully reduce Nature Deficit Disorder (this is NOT a medical condition, but is related to modern lifestyles).

What is Nature Deficit Disorder?

A lack of routine contact with nature may result in stunted academic and developmental growth. This unwanted side-effect of the electronic age is called Nature Deficit Disorder (NDD). The term was coined by author Richard Louv in his book Last Child in the Woods in order to explain how our societal disconnect with nature is affecting today’s children. Louv says we have entered a new era of suburban sprawl that restricts outdoor play, in conjunction with a plugged-in culture that draws kids indoors. But, as Louv presents in his book, the agrarian, nature-oriented existence hard-wired into human brains isn’t quite ready for the overstimulating environment we’ve carved out for ourselves. Some children adapt. Those who don’t develop the symptoms of NDD, which include attention problems, obesity, anxiety, and depression.

Nature-deficit disorder is not a medical condition; it is a description of the human costs of alienation from nature. This alienation damages children and shapes adults, families, and communities. There are solutions, though, and they’re right in our own backyards.

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2006 to pediatric health care providers on ways to increase physical activity in children and adolescents.

The authors stated that lifestyle-related physical activity, as opposed to aerobics or calisthenics, is critical for sustained weight loss in children, and recommended free, unorganized outdoor play as a method of physical activity.

[Ed. note: The above is from a post entitled “Is NDD linked to obesity?” It may be linked, but there are a lot of other factors beyond physical activity (or lack thereof) and diet. But more on that in another post.)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson encourages educators and students to get involved in National Environmental Education Week, April 11-17th. A week-long effort involving thousands of teachers and more than a million students, EE Week connects educators around the country with environmental resources to promote students’ understanding of the environment. Join EPA Administrator Jackson and take part in EE Week 2010.